From: Karen Pomer [mailto:[email protected]] 

http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/columns/3200-this-weeks-crime-of-the-century-.html
 
This  
<http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/columns/3200-this-weeks-crime-of-the-century-.html>
 Week's Crime of the Century 
 
Alexander Cockburn
TheNation.com: Tuesday, 24 July 2012 
 
 sanateamenazante 
<http://www.guatemala-times.com/images/stories/july12/sanateamenazante.jpg>   
 
The great polemicist Alexander Cockburn has just died and we publish his last 
column for The Nation as a farewell salute, introduced by Anthony Barnett. 

The hugely enjoyable polemicist Alexander Cockburn has just died at the age of 
71. I knew him when he was a dashing member of the New Left Review Editorial 
Board in the late sixties and worked with him on the shortlived Seven Days. 
which he edited with brilliant, graphic skill from October 1971 to March 1972. 
He left for America after it folded. This is the last of his 'Beat  
<http://www.thenation.com/article/168834/barclays-and-limits-financial-reform> 
the Devil' columns he wrote for the Nation. Written through the pain of 
terminal cancer the column demonstrates some of Alex's lucid qualities as 
journalist: a compelling, contemptuous grasp of how individuals fix their 
deals; a memorable turn of phrase (the supposedly marvellous 'hidden' hand of 
the market becomes "the grimy hand"); and an undying if bleak allegiance to his 
Communist world-view, "I think the system will collapse, but not through our 
agency". Fitting, final words. Anthony Barnett

Hardly had the boyish visage of JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon quit CNN screens 
than it was succeeded by that of Bob Diamond, former chief executive of 
Barclays, accused of masterminding the greatest financial scandal in the 
history of Britain. Columnists shook with rage at the “reeking cesspool” being 
disclosed—disclosed, mind you, four long years after the Wall Street Journal 
broke the story that the Libor was being fixed. Libor, which stands for “London 
interbank offered rate,” is supposed to be based on the average rate of 
interest banks charge to borrow from one another. The rate is set every morning 
by a panel of banks. Each bank “submits” the rates at which it believes it can 
borrow from the collective money pool, from overnight to twelve months.

Libor is the benchmark for investments all over the world—the Financial Times 
estimates that $350 trillion worth of contracts have been pegged to it. It is 
also considered a barometer of a bank’s health. Just as customers with bad 
credit records have to pay higher interest rates, banks deemed in financial 
distress have to pay more to borrow. In October 2008, a doomsday month for the 
world banking industry, it looked like Barclays was next in line for a rescue 
after taxpayers bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds/HBOS on 
October 13. One big warning flare was that beleaguered Barclays could borrow 
from the common money pool only at a very high rate of interest. The answer was 
to fix the rate, with Barclays traders secretly winching it down. It was all 
completely illegal.

Next thing we knew, there was Diamond being reprimanded by a select committee 
of the House of Commons for being nothing better than a common thief. But then 
into the hurly-burly suddenly intruded a new actor, actually one in the form of 
a savior: Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England. It turned out 
that Diamond and Tucker had had a conversation of considerable moment, one 
prudently recorded by Barclays, on October 29, 2008.

Diamond said Tucker had relayed concerns from “senior Whitehall figures” that 
Barclays’s Libor was consistently higher than that of other banks. Tucker is 
alleged to have conveyed the view from Westminster that the bank’s rate did not 
“always need to appear as high as it had recently.” In other words, Westminster 
wanted Barclays to massage its rate to a lower level.

But all with full deniability. According to Barclays, “Bob Diamond did not 
believe he received an instruction from Paul Tucker or that he gave an 
instruction to [former top Barclays deputy] Jerry del Missier. However, Jerry 
del Missier concluded that an instruction had been passed down from the Bank of 
England not to keep Libors so high and he therefore passed down a direction to 
that effect to the submitters.”

Barclays said there was no allegation by the authorities that this instruction 
was intended to manipulate the Libor. And when he was questioned by Tory MP 
David Ruffley on July 9, Tucker testified that “a bell did not go off in my 
head” that banks were lowering their Libor submissions.

Marvelous: the join between civil society and state was tactfully seamless, 
with deniability all round.

So first there are the “senior Whitehall figures” (one turned out to be Cabinet 
Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood)—i.e., the permanent government running Britain. 
When a senior Whitehall figure urges the commission of a serious crime, he 
merely murmurs that the bank’s Libor did not “always need to appear as high as 
it had recently.” There then follows a flurry of talk about misunderstandings 
but, Lord save us, certainly not an order to fix the Libor. Then, unmistakably, 
there is a huge plunge in Barclays’s rate. The government’s concern—that 
Barclays might appear to be on the brink—is averted.

But we live in a capitalist world, duly furnished with its rewards and 
penalties. Barclays has agreed to a $450 million settlement, and Diamond and 
del Missier have resigned. On his way out the door, Diamond said he’d been 
promised £18 million ($28 million) as a golden handshake. The standing 
committee had a good jeer, but Diamond stuck to his guns, and there the matter 
rested until July 10, when Barclays announced that Diamond will forfeit up to 
£20 million ($30 million) in bonuses and incentives but will retain one year’s 
salary, pension and other benefits worth £2 million ($3 million).

Of course, there have been furious calls for further punishment and reform. 
Labour leader Ed Miliband says “we should break the dominance of the big five 
banks…and strike off those whose conduct lets this country down and prosecute 
those who break the law.” He also wants to increase competition by forcing the 
big banks to sell off up to 1,000 of their branches. In the current culture of 
rabid criminality in the banking system, that would surely be unwise, 
unleashing 1,000 small-time banksters.

People calling for banking reform on either side of the 
Atlantic are 
underestimating the problems of enforcement. A writer on the financial news 
blog Zero Hedge recently 
remarked that “the Libor scandal seems to be waking 
people up to manipulation and fraud by the big banks.” Of course, there are 
tools at the ready: sanctions, tribunals, a ban for life for crooked traders. 
But Libor was meant to be the prime glittering advertisement for the free 
market. Now it turns out that the whole thing is a fix—a grimy hand all too 
visible. It’s like the spy in Conrad’s Secret Agent vowing to destroy the first 
meridian.

Is it possible to reform the banking system? There are the usual 
nostrums—tighter regulations, savage penalties for misbehavior, a ban from 
financial markets for life. But I have to say I’m dubious. I think the system 
will collapse, but not through our agency.

With thanks to The Nation <http://www.thenation.com/> 

http://www.opendemocracy.net <http://www.opendemocracy.net/> 

Source: open Democracy

Picture: Barbara Schieber, RAVEN

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2196 / Virus Database: 2437/5161 - Release Date: 07/28/12



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to